FO discrimination

[Ned]

Here's an issue...

Say a 20-year-old Cadet Officer working toward his/her Spaatz wants to have an 18-year-old boyfriend or girlfriend join CAP as a FO. They would no longer be able to date, or the C/Lt Col would have to transition to Senior Member.

This really doesn't make sense.

I agree it doesn't make much sense.

But the problem I have is in the first sentence.  I am a little confused by the notion that a 20 year old cadet would want to have their boyfirend/girlfriend join and then be surprised or disappointed that they can't have a senior member boyfriend or girlfriend in CAP.

BTW, what senior member PD track is most appropriate for someone who joins just to be a boyfriend or girlfriend?

(And can I get several of them assigned to my unit?  )

I don't meant to skip over the very real issue we have with seniors inappropriately dating cadets.  It is always wrong.  Period.

Even if the senior joined for the specific reason of dating a cadet.

Cadets who encounter what I call the "Romeo and Juliet" scenario (two cadets dating when one turns senior for whatever reason) have choices.  The senior could take patron status or they could "pause" their relationship (true love abides, after all.)

However, it is worth remembering that far fewer cadets are caught up in the "Romeo and Juliet" scenario than there are cadets who are simply preyed upon by avaricious older seniors.  As a former legal officer, I dealt with far more "28 year old senior dating a 15 year old cadet" situations than "22 year old senior dating a 20 year old cadet."

Thus the bright-line rule.  Which can seem unfair to the age-appropriate couples who suffer to protect younger cadets.

Ned Lee

[Eeyore]

"28 year old senior dating a 15 year old cadet"

Ew

[alamrcn]

BTW, what senior member PD track is most appropriate for someone who joins just to be a boyfriend or girlfriend? Even if the senior joined for the specific reason of dating a cadet.

My scenario is with the assumption that they are ALREADY a couple, and the non-cadet happens to get interested in what we do. Some people who date take interest in the other's activities... it's how a relationship grows. In the scenario, it's obvious the 20 yr old cadet should continue to strive for the Spaatz and have their significant other hold off joining until that milestone is made. But it's sad that a potentially outstanding new member had to be - in effect - turned away because of our policies that don't follow common law.

My point is that the lines between Cadet into FO into Officer bleed a little more together for a smoother transition, or take away the gray area of what a FO is completely. Maybe we don't have 18-20 year-old regular grade Officers is because they don't exist in the Real Military (tm)?

But DO NOT discourage dating in CAP, please! If we got rid of all the CAP couples and their subsequent offspring (and future cadets) created over the years, it would be like nuking an entire wing out of the program!

[Eclipse]

But DO NOT discourage dating in CAP, please! If we got rid of all the CAP couples and their subsequent offspring (and future cadets) created over the years, it would be like nuking an entire wing out of the program!

Yeah, right. No dating, period.

[davidsinn]

But DO NOT discourage dating in CAP, please! If we got rid of all the CAP couples and their subsequent offspring (and future cadets) created over the years, it would be like nuking an entire wing out of the program!

I met my wife though this organization a little over a year ago.

[Eclipse]

But DO NOT discourage dating in CAP, please! If we got rid of all the CAP couples and their subsequent offspring (and future cadets) created over the years, it would be like nuking an entire wing out of the program!

I met my wife though this organization a little over a year ago.

Congrats - for every positive experience, I can show you three negative, some that ended very badly, and had a serioulsy negative effect on the unit and activities they participated in.

CAP should be treated like work, dating is inappropriate and generally detrimental to the situation.

[lordmonar]

But unlike work....we do CAP for fun...and I, as a former commander and current ES/PD/AE/Trans officer, do not have the time to be the drama coach for a squadron of adults.

Also just like at work...I'll be dambed if I am going to let someone tell me who I can or can't date.....unless they have very good reason to do so.

(military fratinisation is an understandable rule).

But if you do it just to avoid "drama" in a volunteer organisation.......good luck with that.

Back on topic....

But this again ties back into the gray area of what we do with our 18-20 year old members.

Too much gray area, too much overlap between if they are a "children" or "adults".

The FO ranks do not help.
The Cadet on Senior dateing rules do not help.
The vehicle driving rules do no help.
The CAP promotion rules do not help.
The attitdues of the old guys in CAP definatly do not help.

I don't have a simple answer because it is not a simple problem.

But if someone were to take it on with a suggest it would have to include eliminating as much of the "gray area" as possible.

[Eclipse]

But unlike work....we do CAP for fun...and I, as a former commander and current ES/PD/AE/Trans officer, do not have the time to be the drama coach for a squadron of adults.

Also just like at work...I'll be damed if I am going to let someone tell me who I can or can't date.....unless they have very good reason to do so.

(military fraternization is an understandable rule).

So the military is already telling you, and, there are any number of companies that prohibit dating in the workplace, or require you formally disclose any relationship, especially between a subordinate and a boss.

Otherwise, the "don't poop where you eat" rule is generally at the top of the list for most people serious about their careers, and failure to live by that mantra is, more times than not, at the top of the list why people's career's tank, especially when you move higher on the ladder.

[DNall]

^ God I really don't want to drag this further off topic... but, it's a lot less like that in the military then you think. Yeah boss/subordinate is unacceptable, and in the same unit is pretty crazy but happens on the DL, but between units happens all the time & that's fine. I personally don't want to date anyone in the military for the "poop where you eat" reasons.

[lordmonar]

Just on the dating issue......notice it is a rule of thumb..

that is...it is usually not a good idea, but it is not a "even if you just go out for a drink one time, I got to kick you out of CAP" rule.

Sure...don't poop where you eat....I got that and accept that.  But that is a far cry from...."Cadet Johnson...I say you and Cadet Girly-girl at the mall last Saturday in civies.....I need you to give me a detailed report of what you were doing and why....so I can decide if I need to 2b you are not."

Yes I am exagerating...but as we all know here on CAPTalk....if the regulation say...such and such...people are going to follow the letter of the rule and not the spirit.

Now...back on topic..

FO's and to the some extent cadets over 18 are discriminated against.

The cadets you can argue it is because they choose to remain cadets and technically childern....it is their choice.

But FO's it is simply a rule that has been around for a long time...and it stems from someone (CAP or the USAF I don't know) not wanting to see some 18 year old wearing Lt bars (or FSM forbid Capt Bars).

And it is true.

Younger people do get left out of the SM experince because they are younger and not just FO's.  I'm 42 years old and I am the young kid on the block when it comes time to work at the mission base.  FO's (which we do not have a lot of) are pushed to the side lines all the time.  Not by everyone, but generally speaking they are not respected simply because of their youth...that their FO bars shouts out to everyone under the sun.

So...once again....solutions.

1.  Make everyone go through the FO ranks as part of their entry into CAP. (Good, but too radical of a change will make people angry).

2.  Eliminate FO ranks all together. (good except who ever instituded the rule in the first place).

3.  Make everyone under the age of 21 a cadet. (kills lots of birds with that one stone).

4.  Make everyone over the age of 18 a SM (increases the number of FO's makes a clear disction between cadets and SMs)

5.  Eliminate USAF rank except for Command personnel and put everyone one in FO ranks (FO-Level I, TFO- Level II, SFO-Level III, 2d Lt-Level IV with no job, 1st Lt-Level V with no job).  (very....very....radical.  )

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

BTW, what senior member PD track is most appropriate for someone who joins just to be a boyfriend or girlfriend? Even if the senior joined for the specific reason of dating a cadet.

But DO NOT discourage dating in CAP, please! If we got rid of all the CAP couples and their subsequent offspring (and future cadets) created over the years, it would be like nuking an entire wing out of the program!

Probable one bigger than RI

[Smitty]

Here is the take of another former Flight Officer.  I experienced a bit of prejudice from some SMs while I was active, but I also recieved a lot of support from most members.  Overall, I think my time as an FO was very rewarding and made for a good transition.  Here are some things I would like to point out.

1.) After I turned 18 I became an FO because for two reasons.  One, I felt that I had taken what I could from the cadet program and I could be a better asset to the unit by turning senior and taking over the Leadership Officer position.  Two, I was an adult and wanted to be treated as one.  It just seemed ridiculous that I could be responsible enough to do things like moving out of my parents house, go to college, work, and pay bills while on my own, but as soon as I went to a CAP activity I wasn't responsible enough to keep the keys to my car nor keep my cell phone for the duration of the activity. 

2.) It would be stupid to allow 18-20 year old members to hold 2d Lt - Capt.  There is no room there for any type of transition between being a cadet and being an officer.  Keeping the same members at the rank of SM would also be a poor move.  It would lock them in place and prevent growth in the program as they gain experience.  The FO program is in the middle here.  It doesn't make these members full officers, but it does give them room to grow and gain promotions as they increase in maturity, responsibility and capability.  This rank also lets the member gain a bit of seniority after turning 21. 

Let's use 3 examples:

Policy A: An individual joins as a cadet on their 15th birthday and earns the Mitchell Award when he is 17.  At 18 he decides to turn senior because he is going to college and feels he has outgrown the cadet program and wants to be treated as an adult.  The policy is that all Seniors are eligible for officer rank.  Because he has the Mitchell Award he is promoted to 2d Lt immediately after becoming a senior even though he was a cadet just days before with no time to gain the maturity needed to be an officer or to seperate himself from being a cadet.

Policy B: The same individual turns senior at 18, but cannot hold any rank other than SM.  Between 18 and 21 this member earns a technician and senior rating in personnel and a technician rating in cadet programs and completes level II of the PD program.  On turning 21 this member is only capable of promoting to 2d Lt despite having 6 years in CAP and valuable experience and training.

Policy C: The same individual turns senior at 18 and is appointed as a Flight Officer because of the Mitchell Award.  Between 18 and 21 he earns a technican rating in personnel and is promoted to Technical Flight Officer.  The member then earns a senior rating in personnel and a second technician rating in cadet programs and completes level II of the PD program.   As a result he is promoted to Senior Flight Officer six months before turning 21.  As such, when he turns 21 he is promoted to 1st Lt with 6 months time in grade towards Capt.  Seemingly more appropriate for somebody with 6 years in the program and the experience and training of the member.

3.) Whether the FO program stays or goes, something has to be done that addresses members that are 18-20 years old.  Making them all cadets will not work and making them all seniors will not work either.         
       

[RiverAux]

Policy B: The same individual turns senior at 18, but cannot hold any rank other than SM.  Between 18 and 21 this member earns a technician and senior rating in personnel and a technician rating in cadet programs and completes level II of the PD program.  On turning 21 this member is only capable of promoting to 2d Lt despite having 6 years in CAP and valuable experience and training.

Actually, under my proposal he would be able to promote to 1st Lt immediately upon turning 21 if he had completed all the other pre-requisites. 

[DNall]

2.) It would be stupid to allow 18-20 year old members to hold 2d Lt - Capt.  There is no room there for any type of transition between being a cadet and being an officer.  Keeping the same members at the rank of SM would also be a poor move.  It would lock them in place and prevent growth in the program as they gain experience.   

There's no transition between civilian and 2Lt either, nothing different than an FO is going thru anyway. I don't agree that all 20yos are so spectacularly less (fill in the blank) than all 21yos, such that discrimination is justified in the program.

There is no transition when a cadet stays a cadet till 21 either. Lack or presence of FO ranks makes no difference. What does make a difference is assigning that new SM away from cadet programs for the first year or two.

The issue with leaving them in place as a SMWOG is the same as making them a FO - it's an insult/discrimination, and as such deters many cadets from crossing over. That in turn contributes to the gap between cadets and our much older members with a big blank spot in between. We actually want to retain cadets as they reach adulthood & begin to have success in life, not re-gain them 45 years later when they retire to fixed income.

[Eclipse]

The issue with leaving them in place as a SMWOG is the same as making them a FO - it's an insult/discrimination, and as such deters many cadets from crossing over. That in turn contributes to the gap between cadets and our much older members with a big blank spot in between.

No it doesn't, what deters most cadets from crossing over is LIFE, which just starts getting interesting between 18-21.

Cadets on a Spaatz track generally stay cadets through 21, and those not generally get demotivated in general around 18.  They go away to school, get jobs, enlist, or otherwise find ways to spend their weekends  other than CAP.

I don't personally believe the people who are actually effected by this care about it or think about it as much
as even this thread would insinuate - it is what it is, and what it not is discrimination or insulting.

[RiverAux]

Does anyone know if Flight Officer rank is noted in eservices as such or are they lumped as Senior Members like all the NCOs used to be?  If it is the latter, I would recommend changing that so at least it is recorded officially.

[Stroke]

On e-Services FOs stay Senior Members.  Promotions in the FO Grades are controlled and tracked at the Squadron level.  It would make it more "official" looking if FO grade was tracked at National, but I don't believe it is all that necessary.  The system works as written. 

[Always Ready]

Does anyone know if Flight Officer rank is noted in eservices as such or are they lumped as Senior Members like all the NCOs used to be?  If it is the latter, I would recommend changing that so at least it is recorded officially.

No eServices doesn't record Flight Officer grade. I wish they did. Believe it or not, it adds credibility to the grade. I've noticed that whenever people see me for the first time in uniform or see my grade they get confused. Unless they have specifically taught to know what Flight Officer insignia looks like or have known another Flight Officer, they have no idea what to call me. Yes, all members SHOULD know what all the insignia looks like and how to address the people that wear them. But, more often that not, few have any idea what they are. Just last Thursday at my squadron's weekly meeting I was called Senior Member, LT, Warrant Officer, and Flying Officer. When I show people my 101 card or my CAPID card, they get just as confused or accuse me of impersonating an officer  One way we can solve this is by educating members on proper terms of address and identification of CAP grade insignia...which should happen during Level One training. But it's not going to happen so let's record the grade on CAPID cards and 101 cards and make my life a little easier. It gets old explaining my grade to EVERYONE. I do wish to keep the Flight Officer system though, it's not perfect but it gets the job done.

[DNall]

The issue with leaving them in place as a SMWOG is the same as making them a FO - it's an insult/discrimination, and as such deters many cadets from crossing over. That in turn contributes to the gap between cadets and our much older members with a big blank spot in between.

No it doesn't, what deters most cadets from crossing over is LIFE, which just starts getting interesting between 18-21.

Cadets on a Spaatz track generally stay cadets through 21, and those not generally get demotivated in general around 18.  They go away to school, get jobs, enlist, or otherwise find ways to spend their weekends  other than CAP.

I don't personally believe the people who are actually effected by this care about it or think about it as much
as even this thread would insinuate - it is what it is, and what it not is discrimination or insulting.

My life was pretty dang entertaining from about 8th or 9th grade on. With the exception of the care & living away from my parents, I wasn't doing anything as a senior in college that I wasn't already doing in HS. While many of our cadets live rather sheltered lives - and I don't know if that's who we attract or CAP plays some part in that - the majority of kids that age do not.

While you're correct that graduating HS is a time when most kids are going to move away (college or military) and hence drop CAP. There are also a lot of young adults moving into our area or just finding CAP at that point, as I did.

I joined at 18 & came up thru the FO system. I found it both insulting and discriminatory, as have just about every current or former FO I've ever talked to.

[RiverAux]

On e-Services FOs stay Senior Members.  Promotions in the FO Grades are controlled and tracked at the Squadron level.  It would make it more "official" looking if FO grade was tracked at National, but I don't believe it is all that necessary.  The system works as written. 

It wouldn't take but a few keystrokes.  If it was worth doing for a few dozen CAP NCOs, it is probably worth doing for a whole lot more Flight Officers.  Its a legitimate rank, so there is no legitimate justification for not treating it as such.